The Official, one and only, Men's IRB Rugby World Cup 2023 thread

[Torquemada 1420]

I wonder if part of it was when Uruguay played Fra, they did so with complete freedom with zero expectation of winning but when the pressure came on tonight, they got all conservative and jittery.

Namibia play a traditional South African style game. It's about disrupting the opponent then imposing yourself on them. It means they struggle to be in the match against the biggest sides. But any side that isn't in the 6N/RC/PIs they're going to be fully in the match. Even against Italy, and it's quite a good Italy side, Namibia were in the match for abut 30 to 40 minutes in a similar way Uruguay were for a half.

I picked this one by the exact margin. Uruguay a score better, close enough for Nam to have a chance.

You were quite a bit out, which is unusual for you!

A mile out. Read the 4 Namib players lost to injury, ban and spiders and figured Uruguay would run riot.

[_Os_]

I wonder if part of it was when Uruguay played Fra, they did so with complete freedom with zero expectation of winning but when the pressure came on tonight, they got all conservative and jittery.

Namibia play a traditional South African style game. It's about disrupting the opponent then imposing yourself on them. It means they struggle to be in the match against the biggest sides. But any side that isn't in the 6N/RC/PIs they're going to be fully in the match. Even against Italy, and it's quite a good Italy side, Namibia were in the match for abut 30 to 40 minutes in a similar way Uruguay were for a half.

I picked this one by the exact margin. Uruguay a score better, close enough for Nam to have a chance.

You were quite a bit out, which is unusual for you!

A mile out. Read the 4 Namib players lost to injury, ban and spiders and figured Uruguay would run riot.

It was 5 players, Deysel/Johan Retief/Le Roux Malan/Wian Conradie/Divan Rossouw.

There's two ways of looking at it, like a bookie setting the handicap quantitatively or like a good punter more qualitatively (although a good punter will at least have some basic quantitative data like past scores).

Any bookie's handicap system will have a value attributed to each player, literally how many points they are worth per match, players that score more will be worth more, even Marx who imo is the world's best hooker isn't going to be worth more than a single point, but a good kicker is going to be worth minimum 3 points and probably closer to 5. Yes, it's really that basic. Over time any value the forwards add is captured by the backs scoring. There's a lot of holes in this as no doubt you can work out (obviously Marx is not worth 1 point in any qualitative analysis, at the lineout he's on 100% of ball won on his throw this RWC, but unlike all the other hookers on 100% most of his ball was not to the front ... cannot set a maul in the corner without winning your ball etc). Over time/in aggregate this quantitative method will win, but punters don't need to be in every market.

A qualitative method would have to try and weigh losing players with others starting (Swanepoel/Uanivi/Van Jaarsveld all didn't play against France but played this one). A quantitative system would pick up Swanepoel was starting, wouldn't surprise me if he was valued higher than most of the Nam pack combined in a proper handicap system. A qualitative analysis would've also rated him starting, but it would've also noticed Van Jaarsveld was starting (wouldn't surprise me if the system bookies use scores him 0), he's a really good hooker, was first choice in the strong Cheetahs Super Rugby teams years back and played Pro D2 for years.

My view was that Deysel was a huge loss, captain and was a strong 1st XV CC player (Leopards and Sharks) and squad player for the Sharks Super Rugby side for two seasons (not a 1st XV player). Any method of analysis would count losing Deysel. Le Roux Malan was an unlucky squad player, no method of analysis notices him not be selected (brutal given the injury, but that's what it is). Divan Rossouw would be noticed by a quantitative analysis (he's a wing/fullback normally so scores points, and played for the Bulls for seasons), a qualitative analysis less so (Mouton is a rookie but looks good, JC Greyling and Cliven Loubser are both average SA provincial level players, Greyling has played CC premier and Loubser has played CC U20, and obviously they've all played for Nam in the CC 1st div), losing Rossouw a downgrade but not much of one. Losing both Johan Retief (the player bitten by a spider) an average CC player (plays for the Griquas) and Wian Conradie (played Varsity Cup in SA, then in the UK and is now in the US), was a big loss that definitely wouldn't show up in a quantitative analysis, but would if you're looking at the quality of the side, it forced Uanivi (the best lock in their squad) onto the blindside.

For me pre-RWC Nam had a real chance in this one. But the injuries in the backrow shifted that a lot. Not long ago Nam had these players in the backrow Renaldo Bothma/Jacques Burger/Tinus du Plessis/Rohan Kitshoff, as well as Wian Conradie/PJ Van Lill who were in this squad. Burger is somewhere in the conversation for best backrow of the pro era, probably top 100, Bothma and Kitshoff were both strong CC players (both on 50+ caps) and didn't look out of place in Super Rugby. The backrow that played this one was some way off that quality.

The best side Nam selected was the first against Italy. The side against Uruguay was similar strength, other than the backrow which made it a lot weaker.

Anyway, won money on this one, bookies handicap of Uruguay -17 looked wrong so went with Nam +17.

Japan v Samoa is a tough pick, and hard because I can't go as deep as I can with Nam (didn't watch Super Rugby, so didn't watch the side a lot of Samoan players play in and don't watch Japanese club rugby). Bookies have the handicap at Samoa -3.5, the points margin market has Samoa at margins under 10 points as the favourite. There's not much to separate their RWC performances. Picking either feels like a loser.

The entire round is about calling the Japan v Samoa match.

[PCPhil]

I guess this leaves New Zealand in third and not having to go through pre-qualification for the next World Cup is still in their own hands.

Good for them.

[Torquemada 1420]

Namibia play a traditional South African style game. It's about disrupting the opponent then imposing yourself on them. It means they struggle to be in the match against the biggest sides. But any side that isn't in the 6N/RC/PIs they're going to be fully in the match. Even against Italy, and it's quite a good Italy side, Namibia were in the match for abut 30 to 40 minutes in a similar way Uruguay were for a half.

I picked this one by the exact margin. Uruguay a score better, close enough for Nam to have a chance.

You were quite a bit out, which is unusual for you!

A mile out. Read the 4 Namib players lost to injury, ban and spiders and figured Uruguay would run riot.

It was 5 players, Deysel/Johan Retief/Le Roux Malan/Wian Conradie/Divan Rossouw.

There's two ways of looking at it, like a bookie setting the handicap quantitatively or like a good punter more qualitatively (although a good punter will at least have some basic quantitative data like past scores).

Any bookie's handicap system will have a value attributed to each player, literally how many points they are worth per match, players that score more will be worth more, even Marx who imo is the world's best hooker isn't going to be worth more than a single point, but a good kicker is going to be worth minimum 3 points and probably closer to 5. Yes, it's really that basic. Over time any value the forwards add is captured by the backs scoring. There's a lot of holes in this as no doubt you can work out (obviously Marx is not worth 1 point in any qualitative analysis, at the lineout he's on 100% of ball won on his throw this RWC, but unlike all the other hookers on 100% most of his ball was not to the front ... cannot set a maul in the corner without winning your ball etc). Over time/in aggregate this quantitative method will win, but punters don't need to be in every market.

A qualitative method would have to try and weigh losing players with others starting (Swanepoel/Uanivi/Van Jaarsveld all didn't play against France but played this one). A quantitative system would pick up Swanepoel was starting, wouldn't surprise me if he was valued higher than most of the Nam pack combined in a proper handicap system. A qualitative analysis would've also rated him starting, but it would've also noticed Van Jaarsveld was starting (wouldn't surprise me if the system bookies use scores him 0), he's a really good hooker, was first choice in the strong Cheetahs Super Rugby teams years back and played Pro D2 for years.

My view was that Deysel was a huge loss, captain and was a strong 1st XV CC player (Leopards and Sharks) and squad player for the Sharks Super Rugby side for two seasons (not a 1st XV player). Any method of analysis would count losing Deysel. Le Roux Malan was an unlucky squad player, no method of analysis notices him not be selected (brutal given the injury, but that's what it is). Divan Rossouw would be noticed by a quantitative analysis (he's a wing/fullback normally so scores points, and played for the Bulls for seasons), a qualitative analysis less so (Mouton is a rookie but looks good, JC Greyling and Cliven Loubser are both average SA provincial level players, Greyling has played CC premier and Loubser has played CC U20, and obviously they've all played for Nam in the CC 1st div), losing Rossouw a downgrade but not much of one. Losing both Johan Retief (the player bitten by a spider) an average CC player (plays for the Griquas) and Wian Conradie (played Varsity Cup in SA, then in the UK and is now in the US), was a big loss that definitely wouldn't show up in a quantitative analysis, but would if you're looking at the quality of the side, it forced Uanivi (the best lock in their squad) onto the blindside.

For me pre-RWC Nam had a real chance in this one. But the injuries in the backrow shifted that a lot. Not long ago Nam had these players in the backrow Renaldo Bothma/Jacques Burger/Tinus du Plessis/Rohan Kitshoff, as well as Wian Conradie/PJ Van Lill who were in this squad. Burger is somewhere in the conversation for best backrow of the pro era, probably top 100, Bothma and Kitshoff were both strong CC players (both on 50+ caps) and didn't look out of place in Super Rugby. The backrow that played this one was some way off that quality.

The best side Nam selected was the first against Italy. The side against Uruguay was similar strength, other than the backrow which made it a lot weaker.

Anyway, won money on this one, bookies handicap of Uruguay -17 looked wrong so went with Nam +17.

Japan v Samoa is a tough pick, and hard because I can't go as deep as I can with Nam (didn't watch Super Rugby, so didn't watch the side a lot of Samoan players play in and don't watch Japanese club rugby). Bookies have the handicap at Samoa -3.5, the points margin market has Samoa at margins under 10 points as the favourite. There's not much to separate their RWC performances. Picking either feels like a loser.

The entire round is about calling the Japan v Samoa match.

Bit in bold sums it up. I was way off beam simply because I didn't know enough (anything of use) about Namibia and only a bit about Uruguay. I rely upon what I know and that necessitates watching games (or the players at least). I cannot finish outside top 2 in this season's NPC. In a very competitive comp. like that, you can't simply go with favourites in the manner of the RWC (e.g. England v Chile) and rely upon the odd tight call falling your way. Nearly every game is a potential Japan v Samoa. I stay away from comps that are turkey shoots like 6N and 3N/TRC.

Bookies get it wrong way more often in rugby because they simply rely upon form data at a team level. There is no factoring for player selection, position, individual form, injury, player unit effectiveness (e.g. backrow, half backs) weather or even the referee (there: I gave away my system ); all of which can be result determinants in rugby in a manner unlike any other team sport. Bookies are right on Japan v Samoa though. Coin toss.

[sockwithaticket]

Samoa beat Japan by two points in the Pacific Nations Cup. Haven't seen a lot of evidence that the eligbility switchers have made much difference to them, so would predict a one score game again. Probably in their favour.

[Sandstorm]

Samoa are chasing hard to get more cards than filthy Namibia this RWC. I predict Japan will beat 13/14 man Samoa by 12 points.

[Simian]

Samoa beat Japan by two points in the Pacific Nations Cup. Haven't seen a lot of evidence that the eligbility switchers have made much difference to them, so would predict a one score game again. Probably in their favour.

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

[Simian]

Samoa are chasing hard to get more cards than filthy Namibia this RWC. I predict Japan will beat 13/14 man Samoa by 12 points.

That’s how I can see it playing out as well.

[sockwithaticket]

Samoa beat Japan by two points in the Pacific Nations Cup. Haven't seen a lot of evidence that the eligbility switchers have made much difference to them, so would predict a one score game again. Probably in their favour.

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

[Simian]

Samoa beat Japan by two points in the Pacific Nations Cup. Haven't seen a lot of evidence that the eligbility switchers have made much difference to them, so would predict a one score game again. Probably in their favour.

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

I completely agree they don’t necessarily decide games these days, but when there isn’t much between the sides I think it’s fair to say they certainly can. Here (and from memory), nearly all Samoa’s points came after the red and Japan conceded scores you’d expect them not to with a fully loaded back row (eg simple blindside move off an attacking scrum).

Not at all suggesting Samoa weren’t worth their win. They absolutely were. It was a clear red card. My point is just that it (imo) definitely had an impact.

Having said all that, Leilifano kicked at goal a lot better than he often does, which was also a big factor.

[Torquemada 1420]

Samoa beat Japan by two points in the Pacific Nations Cup. Haven't seen a lot of evidence that the eligbility switchers have made much difference to them, so would predict a one score game again. Probably in their favour.

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

Irony being that really wasn't a red whereas some of the stuff that has escaped red in this comp..............

[Torquemada 1420]

Samoa beat Japan by two points in the Pacific Nations Cup. Haven't seen a lot of evidence that the eligbility switchers have made much difference to them, so would predict a one score game again. Probably in their favour.

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

[JM2K6]

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

You're confusing "influencing" and "determining" I think

[_Os_]

Japan v Samoa. Just spent some time looking at stats from RWC 2023 matches. Japan have the stronger defence, as in make more tackles and miss less. Japan have the better discipline, they concede less penalties. Japan set piece edges it, but only by a small margin. Kicking, Japan are kicking a bit more but level otherwise (not great that they could kick possession to Samoan runners). Running looks level.

I've watched every match, but really struggling to remember much of their games. Two forgettable teams. Samoa definitely struggled more with the Pumas than Japan did with England though, despite the final scores. Japan v England had one point in it before a try after the 50th minute by England. The final score was closer in the Pumas v Samoa match, but that was a match Samoa should've been aiming to win, they got a pen in the first half and a converted try at the very end of the match once it was over, they were never in it.

Picking Japan, with no confidence. Should be a good match.

[BnM]

Have ITV seriously had 45mins of build up for Japan v Samoa

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

You're confusing "influencing" and "determining" I think

I think sock is confusing outcome with result (winner).

[JM2K6]

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

You're confusing "influencing" and "determining" I think

I think sock is confusing outcome with result (winner).

Really not much difference between the two.

[sockwithaticket]

Leitch’s relatively early red in that game had a big impact tho.

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

When I say outcome I mean whether it's a win, draw or loss. There's an often expressed sentiment (particularly from Antipodeans) that cards ruin games and that red cards essentially determine from their moment of issue that the team losing a man will also lose the game. This is clearly not the case in many games where either the diminished side goes on to win or came bloody close with only an execution error denying them a vital score.

[Sandstorm]

Two injured props on the same side of the scrum ruin a match more than a red card.

[_Os_]

SandStomp called it. Samoa red card was the difference. The focus is on foul play in tackler/ball carrier contacts, and Samoa were always the worst at those.

[Cartman]

Giteau

[Slick]

I'm one of those who believes that reds don't determine outcomes in games. There've been too many games where the 14 man side still wins.

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

When I say outcome I mean whether it's a win, draw or loss. There's an often expressed sentiment (particularly from Antipodeans) that cards ruin games and that red cards essentially determine from their moment of issue that the team losing a man will also lose the game. This is clearly not the case in many games where either the diminished side goes on to win or came bloody close with only an execution error denying them a vital score.

There must be stats for this somewhere, but I can't find them. It just seems glaring bollocks to me.

[sockwithaticket]

Of course reds determine the outcome of all games. Not always the result, but certainly the score. Just because 14 man teams can and still do win might simply be down to the fact that the side with the superior numbers is equally as likely to be the weaker team. It certainly doesn't push us into your implied territory of "red cards never determining the result".

When I say outcome I mean whether it's a win, draw or loss. There's an often expressed sentiment (particularly from Antipodeans) that cards ruin games and that red cards essentially determine from their moment of issue that the team losing a man will also lose the game. This is clearly not the case in many games where either the diminished side goes on to win or came bloody close with only an execution error denying them a vital score.

There must be stats for this somewhere, but I can't find them. It just seems glaring bollocks to me.

I wish there were collated stats, my memory is pretty poor at holding onto specifics, but I know I've seen it quite a bit, but I can only recall a few examples.

The ones that spring to mind first are the two occasions that England have now beaten Argentina while down a man very early on (2016 and again a couple of weeks ago), Australia beat France in 2021 after Koreibete went off within the first 5, Scotland beat France when fagerson was red carded this August. The one time England lost to Australia under Eddie was on the 2022 Summer tour when the Wobs were down to 14.

London Irish pipped Edinburgh while down to 14 a couple of years ago.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/agustin- ... edinburgh/

Quins beat Irish while down to 14
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/56836663

Newcastle beat Gloucester while down to 14
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65037051

Just last night Samoa showed an example of the second bit I was talking about; they finished the stronger team and the game ended with them on the attack looking for a score to take the win. With better goal kicking they may well have already had it wrapped up before then. Back in 2017, the Lions test where Sonny Bill Williams got red carded was only won by the Lions in the closing moments due to that dodgy 'tackled in the air' penalty given when Sinckler jumped into the tackle. The All Blacks were on course to hold on for a draw until that. Wales' "jam slam" in 2021 generally saw them squeak past opposition even in the games with red cards. Those games were there for the taking right at the death.

Montpellier took Exeter to extra time in this year's Champions cup knock outs despite being a man down.

If you go looking, there are plenty of examples where, as I said, either the 14 man team wins or they're right in it at the death. Red cards do not make results foregone conclusions.

[Slick]

These are all examples of course, but there must be many, many times more examples of where that hasn't happened.

I just feels ludicrous to suggest that a red card doesn't have that much impact on results.

[Biffer]

These are all examples of course, but there must be many, many times more examples of where that hasn't happened.

I just feels ludicrous to suggest that a red card doesn't have that much impact on results.

My issue with the whole argument about whether red cards determine / ruin / *your choice of language here* games is the way it's presented as the authorities or referees who are determining / ruining games. It's not. It's thep layers ho get sent off, and it's the coaches who refuse to coach them to lower their tackle height and be properly aware of their positioning.

If Ireland and South Africa can have a hugely physical, brutal game at the highest of levels, as they did, then there's no excuses for anyone imo.

[inactionman]

These are all examples of course, but there must be many, many times more examples of where that hasn't happened.

I just feels ludicrous to suggest that a red card doesn't have that much impact on results.

My issue with the whole argument about whether red cards determine / ruin / *your choice of language here* games is the way it's presented as the authorities or referees who are determining / ruining games. It's not. It's thep layers ho get sent off, and it's the coaches who refuse to coach them to lower their tackle height and be properly aware of their positioning.

If Ireland and South Africa can have a hugely physical, brutal game at the highest of levels, as they did, then there's no excuses for anyone imo.

There's an argument that Kriel should have been sent off against Scotland, and the likes of Peter-Steph Du Toit has had a few cards for some dangerous head hits - they're as prone to it as most others.

That they went a game without a headshot is good, but it's not really proving a great deal.

[Biffer]

These are all examples of course, but there must be many, many times more examples of where that hasn't happened.

I just feels ludicrous to suggest that a red card doesn't have that much impact on results.

My issue with the whole argument about whether red cards determine / ruin / *your choice of language here* games is the way it's presented as the authorities or referees who are determining / ruining games. It's not. It's thep layers ho get sent off, and it's the coaches who refuse to coach them to lower their tackle height and be properly aware of their positioning.

If Ireland and South Africa can have a hugely physical, brutal game at the highest of levels, as they did, then there's no excuses for anyone imo.

There's an argument that Kriel should have been sent off against Scotland, and the likes of Peter-Steph Du Toit has had a few cards for some dangerous head hits - they're as prone to it as most others.

That they went a game without a headshot is good, but it's not really proving a great deal.

Point is it's down to the players, not the refs.

[inactionman]

My issue with the whole argument about whether red cards determine / ruin / *your choice of language here* games is the way it's presented as the authorities or referees who are determining / ruining games. It's not. It's thep layers ho get sent off, and it's the coaches who refuse to coach them to lower their tackle height and be properly aware of their positioning.

If Ireland and South Africa can have a hugely physical, brutal game at the highest of levels, as they did, then there's no excuses for anyone imo.

There's an argument that Kriel should have been sent off against Scotland, and the likes of Peter-Steph Du Toit has had a few cards for some dangerous head hits - they're as prone to it as most others.

That they went a game without a headshot is good, but it's not really proving a great deal.

Point is it's down to the players, not the refs.

Aside from some criticisms over the consistency of the application of laws (Kriel, Biggar etc) the refs are simply administering the laws, they're not setting them or - exactly to your point- they're not breaking them.

I still have an issue with the regulations allowing shoulder high shots but outlawing head shots. Yes, players should aim lower, but there's tactical advantage to hitting a player higher so they'll continue to do it - despite the risk of a red card if they slip up a few inches higher. As we see, week in, week out. Set it so you can't go above midriff and there's absolutely no reason at all why heads should be hit in a standard tackle situation.

I'm not a fan of too much tinkering and too much subjectivity, but I also think clashes that are due to soak tackles, where the tackler is trying to retreat or the tackler getting caught a bit on heels and standing up shouldn't be seen the same way as fully lined-up shoulder drives into jaws.

Anyway, done to death elsewhere, but I just think 'players should tackle lower or else' isn't going to have the effect we want, and the regulations need strengthening to really force tackle heights down to clearly and obviously safe, not just to sanction when they go to dangerous heights. Ultimately, these high shots are still happening, despite sanctions.

[Sandstorm]

The one thing that seems to have (almost) disappeared from this RWC is players hitting prone players on the floor in the head. So at least that directive from WR is starting to take effect.

High tackles will continue a while longer I feel, its a very dynamic part of the game and even the very best get their aim wrong sometimes. I don't like it, but I think we'll have to endure a bit more of it.

[Slick]

The one thing that seems to have (almost) disappeared from this RWC is players hitting prone players on the floor in the head. So at least that directive from WR is starting to take effect.

High tackles will continue a while longer I feel, its a very dynamic part of the game and even the very best get their aim wrong sometimes. I don't like it, but I think we'll have to endure a bit more of it.

But as inactionman says, lower the legal height of a tackle and it’s pretty much gone overnight.

[Sandstorm]

The one thing that seems to have (almost) disappeared from this RWC is players hitting prone players on the floor in the head. So at least that directive from WR is starting to take effect.

High tackles will continue a while longer I feel, its a very dynamic part of the game and even the very best get their aim wrong sometimes. I don't like it, but I think we'll have to endure a bit more of it.

But as inactionman says, lower the legal height of a tackle and it’s pretty much gone overnight.

But surely we'll have dozens of players in the bunker every match because he "might have gone 2cm above the waistband on that last one, Bin"

[inactionman]

The one thing that seems to have (almost) disappeared from this RWC is players hitting prone players on the floor in the head. So at least that directive from WR is starting to take effect.

High tackles will continue a while longer I feel, its a very dynamic part of the game and even the very best get their aim wrong sometimes. I don't like it, but I think we'll have to endure a bit more of it.

But as inactionman says, lower the legal height of a tackle and it’s pretty much gone overnight.

But surely we'll have dozens of players in the bunker every match because he "might have gone 2cm above the waistband on that last one, Bin"

You won't need to yellow them as it's not dangerous. Just a penalty. And I'd expect you'd not need to ref the 2cm above/below bit quite tightly as it's not a high-risk issue - just penalise the obviously high

It makes a red Red card for any head contact in a genuine tackle much less subject to interpretation and mitigation, given it's much more difficult to do by accident or misjudgement.

[inactionman]

I know I keep rattling on about it, but it is a bugbear of mine - you don't manage risks simply by punishing transgression.

WRU and others have a duty of care to mitigate the risk of physical injury, and they're not really doing it regarding head knocks.

As analogy, it's no use someone in a factory sticking up a sign saying 'hot pipe - don't touch' and thinking that was their duty for that risk discharged. They need to actually prevent people touching the pipe - insulate it, place it away from where people walk, anything.

Of course, rugby is different and players accept some degree of risk, but the effects of repeated head knocks are debilitating and nothing has effectively changed to reduce that risk - except punishing transgression, which isn't completely effective.

I'll admit I'm not sure whether the instances of head shots have declined, maybe it has, but we're just focusing more upon the residuals. I don't know, but we've not finished the job.

[C69]

Just imagine the Irish meltdown if they fail to win a knockout match against NZ and Wales get to the semi.
Oh the hilarity.

[Uncle fester]

Just imagine the Irish meltdown if they fail to win a knockout match against NZ and Wales get to the semi.
Oh the hilarity.

Obsessed

[topofthemoon]

All 256 remaining permutations for Pool A at the 2023 RWC:

https://twitter.com/topofthemoonGW/stat ... 5234868635

It's not over yet for Uruguay. All they need to qualify for the quarter-finals is a BP win over the All Blacks, by a margin of at least 80 points and for Italy to take no match points from their game against France...

[sockwithaticket]

I hadn't checked the rest of the fixtures for the weekend until just now. Looks like five foregone conclusions.

[Paddington Bear]

I hadn't checked the rest of the fixtures for the weekend until just now. Looks like five foregone conclusions.

Yeah I’ve got the games on record but will watch the golf, which also seems underwhelming

[SaintK]

Dupont cleared to return.

France captain Antoine Dupont has been cleared to return to action after an operation on a fractured cheekbone.
"Antoine has been cleared to resume progressive physical activity," said the French federation.
"This activity will take place under the supervision of the French national team's medical staff."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66970360

[Fonz]

I hadn't checked the rest of the fixtures for the weekend until just now. Looks like five foregone conclusions.

If Fiji are “off” and their match with Georgia turns into an arm wrestle, I can definitely see that being a close contest resulting in a Georgian win.

While I won’t exactly bet on a Portuguese upset of Australia, depending how depressed the Aussies are, maybe that turns into a contest? Either way, do like watching Os Lobos play, so will try to tune in for that.

Won’t blame anyone for skipping Chile-Argentina, but I for one am excited to see the first all-Hispanic RWC match in history…we’re comin baby

SCO-ROM and SA-Tonga are pretty much training runs though, yeah.